Inevitable? Nonsense. Everyone's responsible for their own decisions, including each escalation in the judicial confirmation wars. I've heard the same argument from would-be court packers. No choice after what Republicans did to Garland. Of course there's a choice.
That's reasonable. But I still dispute the claim that there's no alternatives. Maybe this is why I'm nonpartisan. This idea that if one party does something bad the other party is forced to do something worse makes no sense to me.
-
-
Hmm. What choices should R's have made instead? What does this alternative history look like?
-
I would've liked: 2013: Gang of 14-style compromise. Some Obama noms through, most disliked noms withdrawn, no nuclear option. 2016: Normal process for Garland, even if Rs voted him down in the end. 2017: Just honesty. Rs wanted Gorsuch. Weren't forced to change rules. Chose to.
-
They were forced to change the rules since the Dems did it in 2013. As I said, no unilateral disarmament. As for 2013, Dems screwed themselves by blocking Miguel Estrada. No incentive for Rs to cooperate then.
-
This gets to your point about how there's always a grievance for the other side to point to. But now that cycle isn't going to be broken until both sides are destroyed, probably.
-
Just imagine what the GOP will do if Democrats try to pack the court. And if they're successful?
-
I've been pretty nervous about attempted court-packing ever since some on the left began openly advocating it. Hard no. But if it happens, I expect many "we had no choice after Garland" arguments, and I'm going to be really annoyed by them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.